Author
Topic: Examining the Big Bang (Read 1662 times)

If the whole Big Bang cosmological argument is essentially based on the belief that red-shifting of light was due to Doppler expansion of the Universe, if it can be proved that red-shifting is not due to Doppler expansion, then what does the idea of an expanding universe and in turn the Big Bang Theory have to stand on?

... if it can be proved that red-shifting is not due to Doppler expansion...

I'll bite.

The Doppler Effect has been commonly accepted since just after 1842, when proposed by Christian Doppler. It seems to be the basis of a lot of science, and has been embraced by such notables as Hubble, Einstein, and Hawkin, to name a few.

State your theory as to why red-shifting is not due to the Doppler Effect, and then maybe we can discuss it.

By characterizing the detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations, WMAP has accurately determined the basic cosmological parameters, including the Hubble constant. The current best direct measurement of the Hubble constant is 73.8 km/sec/Mpc (give or take 2.4 km/sec/Mpc including both random and systematic errors), corresponding to a 3% uncertainty. Using only WMAP data, the Hubble constant is estimated to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc (give or take 2.2 km/sec/Mpc), also a 3% measurement. This assumes that the universe is spatially flat, which is consistent with all available data. This measurement is completely independent of traditional measurements using Cepheid variables and other techniques. However, if we do not make an assumption of flatness, we can combine WMAP data with other cosmological data to get 69.3 km/sec/Mpc (give or take 0.8 km/sec/Mpc), a 1% solution that combines different kinds of measurements. After noting that independent observations give consistent results, it is reasonable to combine information to get the best estimate of parameters.

Hubble’s law, v = Hd supposedly relates the velocities (v) of recession of galaxies to their distances (d) from the present position of Earth. The velocities are calculated from the spectrographic red-shifts of the light from the galaxies, using the Doppler equation for light. If the red-shift is sufficiently great the Doppler equation with relativistic correction is used. There is no agreement on the value of the Hubble constant (H). One presently accepted value for H is 15 kilometers per second per million light-years. Thus, the calculated velocity of a galaxy at a distance of 1 billion light-years is 15,000 kilometers per second.

ANALYSIS

The Doppler effect results from the difference between the velocity of a light source at the time of emission of light and the velocity of an observer at the time of observation of that light. Since light propagates with a finite velocity, the time of emission is always in the past relative to the time of observation. Therefore, any information obtained from light (or other electromagnetic radiation) is information about the past. Information about galaxies, then, is past information. The distances and velocities of galaxies are those that existed at the times they emitted their light.

A galaxy at a distance of 1 billion light-years, with a calculated recession velocity of 15,000 kilometers per second, would have had that distance and that velocity 1 billion years ago. Observed attributes of a galaxy at a distance of 10 billion light-years are the attributes it had 10 billion years ago. Hubble’s law, therefore, does not relate the present distances of galaxies to their present recession velocities. It relates the past distances to past velocities of galaxies, each at a different time in the past according to its distance. Thus, Hubble’s relationship does not apply to all galaxies at a single time or to any galaxy at the present time.

Hubble’s law provides no way to determine the velocity of a galaxy at any time other than the time it emitted the light now observed. It disregards the effects of the passage of time. Since Hubble’s law is time independent, it does not support the idea of recession of the galaxies at any one time, past or present. Hubble’s law suffers from the error of time confusion.

The time confusion in Hubble’s relationship can be removed by giving it time dependence. The distance traveled by the light from a galaxy is given by d = c(to – te) where c is the velocity of light, to is the time of observation, and te is the time of emission. Let to = 0 be the present time. Then te < 0, since te = 0 would imply infinite velocity for light and since te > 0 would imply observation prior to emission, neither of which implications are possible. Substituting the above into Hubble’s law we have the time dependent form of Hubble’s law: v = –Hcte ; te < 0.

In this new relationship the term –Hc represents a constant past deceleration of the galaxies. The most likely cause for such deceleration would be mutual gravitational attraction of the galaxies and other forms of matter. However, deceleration by mutual gravitational attraction would not have remained constant. It would have decreased as the inverse of the squares of the average separation of the galaxies, in accordance with Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Thus, this time-dependent form of Hubble’s relationship, with its impossible constant deceleration, cannot be valid. However, the past distance of a galaxy is identical to the distance traveled by its light: d = c(to – te). Therefore the usual form of Hubble’s law, v = Hd, is also not valid and does not represent recession or advance of galaxies.

From the above we find that Hubble’s law does not support present recession of galaxies; nor does it support recession in the past. Given time dependence, Hubble’s law if found not to be valid. Thus, the spectrographic red-shift of galaxies did not result from Doppler effect caused by recession of the galaxies.

CONCLUSION

Hubble’s law has been found to be in error; the error of time confusion. Spectrographic red-shift of the light from galaxies has been shown not to result from recession of the galaxies. Hubble’s law is inapplicable to the present states of galaxies and, moreover, is not a valid relationship. Therefore, the theory that the galaxies are receding from each other in now completely unsupported. The theory that the universe is expanding has lost its principal support and is now untenable. Since the expanding universe theory is untenable, the big bang theory no longer serves its purpose.

Hubble, in his The Observational Approach to Cosmology, was aware that the red-shift of the light from galaxies had to result either from an effect at the time of emission of the light or from an effect occurring during the journey of the light to Earth. Since the idea of recession of galaxies is unsupported, the cause of red-shift must lie in phenomena possible during the travel of light though intergalactic space.

Does this imply a steady-state universe? Is the universe not expanding? What does cause the spectrographic red-shift?

No false humility, but I'm truly too stupid to understand the implications of this. From the quoted statement above, it seems as though it has no quarrel with the 'recession of galaxies', so what does this mean regarding the universe (as understood prior to this)?

I searched on the author. Didn't see any other articles not referring to his book.

Of course, he makes me look like a chimp, but he seems to have his hands in a lot of things, which raises some off-the-cuff doubts regarding all that stuff I have no way of understanding. In short, has his theory or findings been critically reviewed yet?

I'm finding it difficult to take that seriously that someone who has discovered that the universe is not only not expanding but, according to his Amazon blurb, does not exist - yet, despite this discovery of monumental proportion - has chosen to skip adorning his mantlepiece with a Nobel by choosing not to offer his work for formal academic scrutiny in favour of a self-published book.

Still, at least his only reviewer on Amazon was kind enough to recommend his book on account of him being her grandfather.

That or he's a nice guy but a bit of a nutter.

Yeah, I know. Mainstream conspiracy, have an open-mind, scientists are all against him, prove him wrong, what if he's right, what if Unicorn meat really is high in protein after all, etc

Logged

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman

He messed up. His mistake is in assuming that since we only know it at the time (in the past) when it was originally emitted, we can't know what happened since. However, since light emitted by galaxies is red-shifted unless those galaxies are fairly close to us, and the further a galaxy is from us, the more red-shifted it is (implying that it's receding faster), and we can observe this in every direction, we can infer that something must have caused that increased red-shift. In his conclusion, he dances around saying that he doesn't know what caused it - he simply attempts to rule out current explanations for why it is happening.

In short, all he did here was attempt to disprove Hubble's Law and the whole idea of galaxies receding from each other. He advanced nothing at all to explain what might actually be causing the spectrographic redshift. While there's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself, it isn't a very strong argument, especially since we already have a better explanation than galactic recession - namely, that the space between galaxies is stretching. That's a subtle but important distinction.

Also, it doesn't have anything to do with the biggest piece of evidence in support of the Big Bang - namely, the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation).

Loop Quantum GravityWiki, along with string theoryWiki would appear to suggest a big crunchWiki not a big bang. These are attempts to link the usual gravity with quantum forces and come up with a unified theory of everything. The whole thing is best explained in a video - a bit long but very insightful.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

^Not really. The fact is that we simply don't know what caused the Big Bang or what might have come before it, so infinite regress is pretty much irrelevant in this case.

Infinite regress is relevant within the field of the natural sciences. If we want to assume something existed before the big bang it either had to be natural (and therefore conflicts with infinite regress) or not natural. At some point we have to accept that something beyond our own natural universe and laws exists; something outside of our range of understanding.

^Not really. The fact is that we simply don't know what caused the Big Bang or what might have come before it, so infinite regress is pretty much irrelevant in this case.

Infinite regress is relevant within the field of the natural sciences. If we want to assume something existed before the big bang it either had to be natural (and therefore conflicts with infinite regress) or not natural. At some point we have to accept that something beyond our own natural universe and laws exists; something outside of our range of understanding.

No, we don't. You may want to, but we don't have to. You are simply inserting your god where you want it to be. Out of interest, did you watch that video?

Finally this: something outside of our range of understanding.

Something out of our range of understanding, yet you conveniently understand what it is and understand what it wants? How does that even begin to make sense?

Logged

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool -- Richard Feynman

^Not really. The fact is that we simply don't know what caused the Big Bang or what might have come before it, so infinite regress is pretty much irrelevant in this case.

Infinite regress is relevant within the field of the natural sciences. If we want to assume something existed before the big bang it either had to be natural (and therefore conflicts with infinite regress) or not natural. At some point we have to accept that something beyond our own natural universe and laws exists; something outside of our range of understanding.

Exactly - but that has to mean what it says, thatw e don't know what it is an can't make guesses or associate it with deities.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

^Not really. The fact is that we simply don't know what caused the Big Bang or what might have come before it, so infinite regress is pretty much irrelevant in this case.

Infinite regress is relevant within the field of the natural sciences. If we want to assume something existed before the big bang it either had to be natural (and therefore conflicts with infinite regress) or not natural. At some point we have to accept that something beyond our own natural universe and laws exists; something outside of our range of understanding.

No, we don't. You may want to, but we don't have to. You are simply inserting your god where you want it to be. Out of interest, did you watch that video?

Finally this: something outside of our range of understanding.

Something out of our range of understanding, yet you conveniently understand what it is and understand what it wants? How does that even begin to make sense?

Well as far as God would go you are already making an incorrect assumption as to my supposed knowledge of every intricate detail of how he would work.

However, how I see it is that if the universe has an origin or has been existing for eternity there will still be something we can't understand. Whether the universe has an origin or is cycling you can still ponder origin, as a cycling universe still wouldn't be able to explain its own existence as that would imply it is self-occurring; a logical paradox.

I also don't think "We will figure it out someday." is a proper explanation to refute the argument of "There are some things we can't understand."

^Not really. The fact is that we simply don't know what caused the Big Bang or what might have come before it, so infinite regress is pretty much irrelevant in this case.

Infinite regress is relevant within the field of the natural sciences. If we want to assume something existed before the big bang it either had to be natural (and therefore conflicts with infinite regress) or not natural. At some point we have to accept that something beyond our own natural universe and laws exists; something outside of our range of understanding.

Exactly - but that has to mean what it says, thatw e don't know what it is an can't make guesses or associate it with deities.

Just because science (by the definition of what it is the and pre-suppositions that scientists make) can't explain the existence of a God, the origin of the universe, etc. doesn't mean that we can't have any knowledge of how it happened.

Now I don't mean to open up pandora's box here, but this is of course where we would detach from purely naturalistic science and focus on a certain book that would simply tell us these things rather than expect us to impossibly figure them out on our own. We might not be able to fully comprehend infinity but we can still theorize about it; we can think of it as "It just keeps going on and on.". In the same way it would be how man could view things learned from said certain book.

If God did do it, then we could trust the bible. If not then we couldn't. Either way though, if he was the creator then we would indeed be able to at least partially understand things that might be out of our range of full understanding that we would be unable to discover on our own. This is of course assuming that intelligent design was correct instead of writing things off under the pre-supposition that they are automatically wrong.

However, how I see it is that if the universeGod has an origin or has been existing for eternity there will still be something we can't understand. Whether the universeGod has an origin or is cycling you can still ponder origin, as a cycling universeGod still wouldn't be able to explain its own existence as that would imply it is self-occurring; a logical paradox.

There, if you consider it to be a logical paradox, then using this same logic (by being consistent), you'll also find god to be a logical paradox.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

However, how I see it is that if the universeGod has an origin or has been existing for eternity there will still be something we can't understand. Whether the universeGod has an origin or is cycling you can still ponder origin, as a cycling universeGod still wouldn't be able to explain its own existence as that would imply it is self-occurring; a logical paradox.

There, if you consider it to be a logical paradox, then using this same logic (by being consistent), you'll also find god to be a logical paradox.

Except God would be a supernatural being (by definition void of the limitations of natural based logic) while we can only answer questions about our universe by means of natural explanation and therefore everything science could know about the universe and its origin would be bound by the limitations of logic. You might just think of this is as a cop-out, but it is a fact none the less.

If we want to understand the illogical super-nature it only makes sense that we don't start out with the presumption that it must follow logical laws and limitations.

However, how I see it is that if the universeGod has an origin or has been existing for eternity there will still be something we can't understand. Whether the universeGod has an origin or is cycling you can still ponder origin, as a cycling universeGod still wouldn't be able to explain its own existence as that would imply it is self-occurring; a logical paradox.

There, if you consider it to be a logical paradox, then using this same logic (by being consistent), you'll also find god to be a logical paradox.

Except God would be a supernatural being (by definition void of the limitations of natural based logic) while we can only answer questions about our universe by means of natural explanation and therefore everything science could know about the universe and its origin would be bound by the limitations of logic. You might just think of this is as a cop-out, but it is a fact none the less.

If we want to understand the illogical super-nature it only makes sense that we don't start out with the presumption that it must follow logical laws and limitations.

If you present a god that isn't bound by the limitations of logic, then we really are beyond any possible conversation. You now have something that can simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time.

And no, it's not a fact, it's an assertion, but I agree that "super-nature is illogical.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

However, how I see it is that if the universeGod has an origin or has been existing for eternity there will still be something we can't understand. Whether the universeGod has an origin or is cycling you can still ponder origin, as a cycling universeGod still wouldn't be able to explain its own existence as that would imply it is self-occurring; a logical paradox.

There, if you consider it to be a logical paradox, then using this same logic (by being consistent), you'll also find god to be a logical paradox.

Except God would be a supernatural being (by definition void of the limitations of natural based logic) while we can only answer questions about our universe by means of natural explanation and therefore everything science could know about the universe and its origin would be bound by the limitations of logic. You might just think of this is as a cop-out, but it is a fact none the less.

If we want to understand the illogical super-nature it only makes sense that we don't start out with the presumption that it must follow logical laws and limitations.

If you present a god that isn't bound by the limitations of logic, then we really are beyond any possible conversation. You now have something that can simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time.

And no, it's not a fact, it's an assertion, but I agree that "super-nature is illogical.

Just because something seems illogical to our minds doesn't mean it can't possibly exist, that would be assuming mankind is potentially all knowing. By definition a creator God wouldn't be bound by the same limitations that humans would be, as if we were both (God and us) under the same rules then that would mean we would be equal with God.

I am just saying that if there is no 'logical' explanation as to the origin/existence of the universe, then why would a creator be out of the question? We can't logically explain a self-occurring universe and we can not logically explain the transition from 100% unadulterated nothingness to the sudden existence of the universe.

Just because something seems illogical to our minds doesn't mean it can't possibly exist, that would be assuming mankind is potentially all knowing. By definition a creator God wouldn't be bound by the same limitations that humans would be, as if we were both (God and us) under the same rules then that would mean we would be equal with God.

I am just saying that if there is no 'logical' explanation as to the origin/existence of the universe, then why would a creator be out of the question? We can't logically explain a self-occurring universe and we can not logically explain the transition from 100% unadulterated nothingness to the sudden existence of the universe.

I'm only going off what you have said, and that is that god is not bound by the limitations of logic. Logic 101 is that something either is or isn't. You've completely thrown that out of the window with god.

Anyway, now you've shifting the goalposts, saying that god only seems illogical to our minds. I'm not saying that god can't possibly exist, but if you put god beyond the realm of our logical understanding, then anything you say about god is meaningless. It's also contradictory, because you are managing to comprehend that something is incomprehensible.

I understand that a god wouldn't be limited to what humans are limited to, otherwise why call it god, but you have a being here who is all powerful and can do anything you can possibly conceive. You have created something that is impossible to detect because it can be the cause of anything.

While we currently don't fully understand the "origin" of our universe, this doesn't mean that we pop in any old answer pending further investigation. If we don't fully understand something, then we don't understand it and we sit on the fence holding any position in abeyance until further information arrives.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Just because something seems illogical to our minds doesn't mean it can't possibly exist, that would be assuming mankind is potentially all knowing. By definition a creator God wouldn't be bound by the same limitations that humans would be, as if we were both (God and us) under the same rules then that would mean we would be equal with God.

I am just saying that if there is no 'logical' explanation as to the origin/existence of the universe, then why would a creator be out of the question? We can't logically explain a self-occurring universe and we can not logically explain the transition from 100% unadulterated nothingness to the sudden existence of the universe.

I'm only going off what you have said, and that is that god is not bound by the limitations of logic. Logic 101 is that something either is or isn't. You've completely thrown that out of the window with god.

Anyway, now you've shifting the goalposts, saying that god only seems illogical to our minds. I'm not saying that god can't possibly exist, but if you put god beyond the realm of our logical understanding, then anything you say about god is meaningless. It's also contradictory, because you are managing to comprehend that something is incomprehensible.

I understand that a god wouldn't be limited to what humans are limited to, otherwise why call it god, but you have a being here who is all powerful and can do anything you can possibly conceive. You have created something that is impossible to detect because it can be the cause of anything.

While we currently don't fully understand the "origin" of our universe, this doesn't mean that we pop in any old answer pending further investigation. If we don't fully understand something, then we don't understand it and we sit on the fence holding any position in abeyance until further information arrives.

Just because God isn't limited by logic doesn't mean he follows none of it. Besides, 'existence' is a word that we define the meaning of. For example, if we say "If A, then God. If B then not God. The universe is either A or B. Therefore, God is limited by logic." is not true logic as we are the ones making up the rules for it. This is all to say that while we can't fully comprehend God certainly does not mean that we can't comprehend God at all. If not then the Bible would be pointless.

If God doesn't follow all of logic, then he is illogical, even if he does follow some of it, once again going back to human's "If A, then God. If B then not God." 'logic'.

Once again, I do accept that if God is out of our reach that we wouldn't be able to fully comprehend him by our own works. We wouldn't be able to look at the universe and know how God did it. We could theorize about an intelligent designer but that is all we could do, theorize.

This is all thrown out the window of course because of the Bible, where God directly tells us these things that we originally would not have been able to learn on our own. While we still can't fully comprehend God (Where did God come from? How can God be 3 persons in one?) we can still know some things that we originally could not know.

Here's how I see it. I find a fully natural origin/existence impossible because it defies the laws of logic. Therefore the origin/existence must have a supernatural cause (by definition). After that it just comes down to discerning which supernatural cause it was. In which case it stops being about science and starts being about theology, history, etc.

Just because God isn't limited by logic doesn't mean he follows none of it. Besides, 'existence' is a word that we define the meaning of. For example, if we say "If A, then God. If B then not God. The universe is either A or B. Therefore, God is limited by logic." is not true logic as we are the ones making up the rules for it. This is all to say that while we can't fully comprehend God certainly does not mean that we can't comprehend God at all. If not then the Bible would be pointless.

'God' is also a word we define the meaning of and make the rules up for. You can't apply this definitonal argument but conveniently exclude the word "god' from it. And you're buffering god around like the ball in a pinball machine - "god's illogical, no he only seems illogical to us, no, hang on, he isn't illogical to us because he follows logic so he can be logical to us". Instead of switching what god is or isn't capable of every time I show it up to be contradictory or inconceivable, just realise that the ball has fallen out the bottom and it's game over.

Quote

If God doesn't follow all of logic, then he is illogical, even if he does follow some of it, once again going back to human's "If A, then God. If B then not God." 'logic'.

You're appealing to logic in order to explain that god is illogical if he doesn't follow all logic, ie - "If A, then god is logical. If B, then god is illogical". In actuality if B, then A and B.

Quote

Once again, I do accept that if God is out of our reach that we wouldn't be able to fully comprehend him by our own works. We wouldn't be able to look at the universe and know how God did it. We could theorize about an intelligent designer but that is all we could do, theorize.

Looking at the universe will tell you how the universe works. It will not show you how something external to it works. "Theorize" is very generous. Even conjecture is being generous. Waving around, blurting out any meaningless white noise that fits in with our evidence free, most comforting beliefs sounds more accurate.

Quote

This is all thrown out the window of course because of the Bible, where God directly tells us these things that we originally would not have been able to learn on our own. While we still can't fully comprehend God (Where did God come from? How can God be 3 persons in one?) we can still know some things that we originally could not know.

Honestly, you might as well have not bothered typing anything here. You believe the bible is the word of god, yet you have given me no reason or justification as to why you believe that and why it should hold any reverence. I don't care what the bible says. It is no different than any other piece of written or spoken word about god, whether that comes from you, the muslim nextdoor, or Christopher Robin.

Quote

Here's how I see it. I find a fully natural origin/existence impossible because it defies the laws of logic. Therefore the origin/existence must have a supernatural cause (by definition). After that it just comes down to discerning which supernatural cause it was. In which case it stops being about science and starts being about theology, history, etc.

It depends where you draw the line with nature. If you confine nature to the universe, then of course by definition, if there was a point where there was no universe, then there was no nature and the universe wasn't created by it.However, you can't find the illogicallity of a natural origin of the universe to be a reason to find it impossible, while at the same time claim god to be illogical (where it suits you) but not see him as impossible. That's just special pleading and being inconsistent.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Just because God isn't limited by logic doesn't mean he follows none of it. Besides, 'existence' is a word that we define the meaning of. For example, if we say "If A, then God. If B then not God. The universe is either A or B. Therefore, God is limited by logic." is not true logic as we are the ones making up the rules for it. This is all to say that while we can't fully comprehend God certainly does not mean that we can't comprehend God at all. If not then the Bible would be pointless.

'God' is also a word we define the meaning of and make the rules up for. You can't apply this definitonal argument but conveniently exclude the word "god' from it. And you're buffering god around like the ball in a pinball machine - "god's illogical, no he only seems illogical to us, no, hang on, he isn't illogical to us because he follows logic so he can be logical to us". Instead of switching what god is or isn't capable of every time I show it up to be contradictory or inconceivable, just realise that the ball has fallen out the bottom and it's game over.

Quote

If God doesn't follow all of logic, then he is illogical, even if he does follow some of it, once again going back to human's "If A, then God. If B then not God." 'logic'.

You're appealing to logic in order to explain that god is illogical if he doesn't follow all logic, ie - "If A, then god is logical. If B, then god is illogical". In actuality if B, then A and B.

Quote

Once again, I do accept that if God is out of our reach that we wouldn't be able to fully comprehend him by our own works. We wouldn't be able to look at the universe and know how God did it. We could theorize about an intelligent designer but that is all we could do, theorize.

Looking at the universe will tell you how the universe works. It will not show you how something external to it works. "Theorize" is very generous. Even conjecture is being generous. Waving around, blurting out any meaningless white noise that fits in with our evidence free, most comforting beliefs sounds more accurate.

Quote

This is all thrown out the window of course because of the Bible, where God directly tells us these things that we originally would not have been able to learn on our own. While we still can't fully comprehend God (Where did God come from? How can God be 3 persons in one?) we can still know some things that we originally could not know.

Honestly, you might as well have not bothered typing anything here. You believe the bible is the word of god, yet you have given me no reason or justification as to why you believe that and why it should hold any reverence. I don't care what the bible says. It is no different than any other piece of written or spoken word about god, whether that comes from you, the muslim nextdoor, or Christopher Robin.

Quote

Here's how I see it. I find a fully natural origin/existence impossible because it defies the laws of logic. Therefore the origin/existence must have a supernatural cause (by definition). After that it just comes down to discerning which supernatural cause it was. In which case it stops being about science and starts being about theology, history, etc.

It depends where you draw the line with nature. If you confine nature to the universe, then of course by definition, if there was a point where there was no universe, then there was no nature and the universe wasn't created by it.However, you can't find the illogicallity of a natural origin of the universe to be a reason to find it impossible, while at the same time claim god to be illogical (where it suits you) but not see him as impossible. That's just special pleading and being inconsistent.

The Bible however was originally spoken by God and has been translated since then. We, mankind, didn't determine what went in it.

I have said that God isn't bound by the limitations of logic, you are the one turning that statement into something it is not.

Maybe that is because God makes sense either way you look at him. Take that answer how you may.

Yes, we could 'theorize' things, however this is why (once again) it all comes back to the Bible. We rely on it for the information we couldn't get by merely theorizing.

I believe the Bible because I have faith, but there are other reasons to believe it as well. I believe I made a thread about the "Minimal facts argument for the resurrection" and I don't believe I have received a response yet.

I am saying that natural logic exists in our natural world, and therefore a supernatural being would be naturally illogical. As would be an origin/existence that would be (by definition) illogical. I can definitely find the illogicality of a natural universe as a means to say that a natural universe is impossible. A natural universe is illogical, and since anything natural can be limited by logic and anything non-logical must be supernatural, then I can arrive at the conclusion that a natural origin/existence (by definition) is illogical therefore impossible. A natural origin is self-refuting.

The Bible however was originally spoken by God and has been translated since then. We, mankind, didn't determine what went in it.

Why are you repeating this, again without any justification or reason? How do you know the bible was originally spoken by god? How do you know mankind didn't determine what went in it? This brings me back to the question I asked in the other thread - what is your method for falsifying supernatural claims?

Quote

I have said that God isn't bound by the limitations of logic, you are the one turning that statement into something it is not.

You also said god was illogical. You also said god seems illogical to our minds. You also said god follows logic at times. You are the one who can't stick to one idea and resorts to holding 3 contradictory ones.

Quote

Maybe that is because God makes sense either way you look at him. Take that answer how you may.

What do you mean "either way"? Logically or illogically? Well no, the whole point of something being illogical is that it doesn't make sense.

Quote

Yes, we could 'theorize' things, however this is why (once again) it all comes back to the Bible. We rely on it for the information we couldn't get by merely theorizing.

Zzzzzz.

Quote

I believe the Bible because I have faith, but there are other reasons to believe it as well. I believe I made a thread about the "Minimal facts argument for the resurrection" and I don't believe I have received a response yet.

Ah, faith. The refuge of the mind that can't square their cherished beliefs with evidence. I'm with big Matt D, in that if you're going to use faith as an excuse as to believing that, in this case, the bible is the word of god, then we have nothing to talk about.

What has that thread got to do with other reasons for believing the bible is the word of god? What - if no-one can come up with a "better" explanation than your held belief that god is the best explanation, then hey presto the bible is the word of god? It's kinda circular when you get down to it.

Quote

I am saying that natural logic exists in our natural world, and therefore a supernatural being would be naturally illogical. As would be an origin/existence that would be (by definition) illogical. I can definitely find the illogicality of a natural universe as a means to say that a natural universe is impossible. A natural universe is illogical, and since anything natural can be limited by logic and anything non-logical must be supernatural, then I can arrive at the conclusion that a natural origin/existence (by definition) is illogical therefore impossible. A natural origin is self-refuting.

You know what (and others are at liberty to correct me if they think otherwise), I don't think you have the first clue about what you have said here. It's gobbledygook. You have gotten yourself into such a muddle over this and that being illogical, and then seemingly illogical, and then sometimes logical that you aren't coming across as, well.....logical.

Logged

If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.